Merton – Strain Theory
Deviance occurs when individuals cannot achieve their goals through legitimate means
Merton’s strain theory combines two elements
1. Structural factors – unequal opportunity
2. Cultural factors – Emphasis on success, no matter the cost
Deviance is the resultant force between the drive for success and the restraint on what can legitimately be
achieved
For example, the American Dream
Teaches of a meritocratic society
However, minority social groups are given an unequal chance at legitimate success
The resultant strain creates the possibility for crime and wider deviance
Strain is increased in American culture because of the need to succeed, whatever the cost
Winning the game becomes more important than playing by the rules
Depending upon an individual’s social standing, depends how they react to potential strain
Merton states there are 5 responses when an individual encounters strain
 Conformity – Accept the strain, and continue to attempt to achieve legitimately
 Innovation – Accept the strain, but turn to illegitimate methods and innovate success
 Ritualism – Give up attempting to succeed, but follow their rules in self-interest
 Retreatism – Reject both goals and means, becoming dropouts
 Rebellion – Reject societal goals and means, replacing them with new legitimate ones
Merton illustrates how a mainstream goal, pursued both legitimately and illegitimately
Evaluation
Statistics are taken at face value, which are over representative of lower class crime
Marxists argue that Merton does not evaluate the power of the ruling class
Ignores that not all of societies members have universal goals
Only accounts for crime which purport a utilitarian monetary gain
Ignores the role of subcultures in deviance
Subcultural strain theories
Status Frustration – Cohen
Agrees with Merton that deviance tends to be a lower class phenomenon
Cohen criticises Merton explanation for two reasons:
1. Merton sees deviance as an individual response, ignoring the collective nature of deviance
2. Merton ignores crime which is committed without a utilitarian gain, such as money
Cohen focuses on deviance which is committed by groups of lower class youths
They face anomie in a middle class education system
The strain’s cause remains equivalent to that cited by Merton
The boys are unable to achieve legitimately causing status frustration
The result strain, causes them to join deviant subcultures
the group then commit crimes and reinforce their deviance
Alternative status hierarchy
The subculture’s values are characterised by spit, malice etc.
Inverts the goals of mainstream society
E.g. Educational attainment is shamed
This allows members to achieve internal status as part of the alternative hierarchy
Cohen’s theory explains non-utilitarian deviance
However, like Merton, he assumes that all classes share the same initial aspirations
Three subcultures – Cloward and Ohlin
Different deviant subcultures can respond in different ways
There is no universal approach like Cohen purports
There is also unequal access to illegitimate opportunity
Study of Chicago school
Different neighbourhoods had different opportunities
Results in the establishment of three distinct types of subcultures
Criminal Subcultures
Provision of a utilitarian criminal ‘apprenticeship’
Occurs where there is a longstanding criminal presence
The adults of the subculture are able to nurture deviant attitudes
They are then able to progress along an alternative hierarchy
Conflict Subcultures
High population turnover
Lack of established criminal hierarchy
Restricts the availability of illegitimate opportunities
Small-time utilitarian gain
Retreatist Subcultures
Founded by individuals who fail both legitimately and illegitimately
Usually turn to addiction as a result of their failure
Evaluation
Unlike Cohen they provide an explanation for different kinds of criminality
Too sharply defined – South (1997)
Conflict and Retreatist subcultures may be interconnected
Miller rejects the idea that people commit crime because of an inability to commit crime
There is a separate lower-class subculture
Different values
Passed from one generation to the next
The subculture is formed as a result of the work life
Number of focal concerns
Desire for excitement
Emphasis on toughness
Smartness – cons etc.
Means to gain status
Deviancy is a result of acting out working class culture
To what extent can you live in a class bubble?
Delinquency ad Drift – Matza
Rejects Millers view that delinquents are part of a distinctive subculture or have different goals
Delinquents are committed to the same norms and values
Deviant behaviour is instead the product of the expression of subterranean values
Underground values which are only socially sanctioned in specific situations
Delinquents express these values outside of the socially sanctioned scenarios
Inability to control these feelings
They maintain their belief in mainstream goals
Attempt to justify their behaviour through:
Denial of responsibility
Denial of injury
Denial of victim
Condemn the condemners
Appeal to a higher authority
Delinquents attempt to justify their actions by citing mainstream values
Not committed to a deviant subculture
Casual criminals
Evaluation
Boredom is the cause of crime – Downes and Rock
Fails to explain organised crime
Mainstream values may only be adopted as an excuse – Cohen
Recent Theories
Youths may seek more than monetary success
This more general lack of success may cause delinquency
May explain middle class delinquency
Increased welfare = lower crime – Downes and Hansen
Post-communist societies see increase in crime for fiscal reasons – Savelsberg
Institutional Anomie Theory
Winner takes all mentality causes individuals to succumb to pressure an ‘anything goes approach’